There are two cases(DOMA and Proposition 8) to be heard by the SCOTUS this session.

At the base of the question is do gay Americans have the same rights as heterosexual Americans? And if so, do they need their constitutional rights protected at the federal level.

I've never had an openly gay friend, co-worker or family member. I did coach a little league baseball team. On that team I had a player with two Mom's. The players and the parents accepted the kid of the two Mom's as any other player. The other parents let their kids go over to the two Mom's house for sleepovers etc. It wasn't a factor to consider in the slightest.

I don't have any personal experience to know what rights is actually being denied. However, I believe that for whatever reason they were born that way. It's not a choice. You can't pray it out of them. You can't give them therapy and turn them into heterosexuals. They are what they are naturally and we should just accept them.

IMHO, the government/city/state/society have no right to tell it's citizens what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. some of our citizens who they can and who they can't love. Who they can and can't marry. History will not be kind to the discrimination of gays, with cause. It's time to end this era of gay discrimination.

Do gays want a contractual relationship that is recognized by the law, or by God?

If they just want a contractual relationship recognized by the law, why not call it something other than "marriage" and try to be polite instead of shitting on someone else's religion?

If they actually want a contractual relationship recognized by God, why do they need the consent of the government at all? That's between them and God to figure out.

They want the same benefits as bestowed by the government on heterosexual married couples. And religion doesn't own marriage, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Anybody can get married by a judge, and it's called marriage.

They want the same benefits as bestowed by the government on heterosexual married couples. And religion doesn't own marriage, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Anybody can get married by a judge, and it's called marriage.

You may not define marriage as a religious concept, but a shitload of people do. Why beat your head against a wall trying to defeat thousands of years of religious dogma when all you want is a ****ing tax break? THAT is my point.

You may not define marriage as a religious concept, but a shitload of people do. Why beat your head against a wall trying to defeat thousands of years of religious dogma when all you want is a ****ing tax break. THAT is my point.

Because religious nuts don't define how we run this country anymore. That's why. Their opinions are irrelevant.

You would be given Carte Blanche if you could handle 4 of those suckers...One is pain in the ass enough.

__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

They want the same benefits as bestowed by the government on heterosexual married couples. And religion doesn't own marriage, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Anybody can get married by a judge, and it's called marriage.

and here is the ROOT problem. **** government being involved in marriage at all. If you wanted to marry two women and a goat... it should be just another legal contract that you can call whatever you want. Call it marriage, call it your harem... but don't expect special treatment for it... regardless of whether you are straight, gay or a Raiders fan.

I disagree with your take that the conservatives have lost Kennedy and that if pressed he'd come down on the side calling gay marriage bans unconstitutional, but I think you're probably calling the outcome right.

If you listen to/read the transcript, you can tell he just doesn't want to be there. My guess is he never voted to grant cert in the first place. He's also written the majority opinion in the two most important related cases (Romer and Lawrence). I'd be shocked if at this point he'd put his name on an opinion defending discrimination against gays.

So yeah, my guess is you'll either get 5 justices to rule on standing, or they'll just say **** it, no majority exists.

On DOMA, I think they'll reach the merits, but we'll know more on that tomorrow. But I think it'll be a narrow ruling.

Basically, SCOTUS will rule in a way mildly favorable to the gay rights side, but mainly punt. That'll give time for challenges in the states, whether through ballot measures, their elected representatives, or in the lower courts. That'll give SCOTUS another few years before they need to address it again.

I read earlier that around 30 states had repealed their anti-miscegenation laws before the Loving decision. So it was basically the rest of the states vs. the South. I think SCOTUS feels much more comfortable acting in those conditions than in current ones.

So it won't be a setback for the gay rights movement as much as a "keep trying" ruling. Go back to the ballot initiatives and start trying to spread out from the coasts. I think you'll see widespread ballot initiatives across the coasts and north/midwest states in 2014 and 2016. And then it'll make its way back through the courts.

and here is the ROOT problem. **** government being involved in marriage at all. If you wanted to marry two women and a goat... it should be just another legal contract that you can call whatever you want. Call it marriage, call it your harem... but don't expect special treatment for it... regardless of whether you are straight, gay or a Raiders fan.